CVE-2025-22868VulnerabilityPublished 1 Apr 2025Updated 25 Oct 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: ACS 4.6 enhancement and security update

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Not known to be exploited : upgrade to 4.6.4 soon.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

Severity

High

Rated by Threat Radar · No CVSS score from NVD or the CNA

EPSS: 0.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 58% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.6.4

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 1 Apr 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-25.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade Red Hat to 4.6.4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat Product Security Red Hat	Affected >=4.6.0 <4.6.4 Red Hat Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes RHACS 4.6 for RHEL 8 ppc64le advanced-cluster-security/rhacs-central-db-rhel8@sha256:e7de910ce1ee2b66e373b5ae1228cbdf9f960b6ee4f9646d6538d6deafceed93_ppc64le	Fixed in 4.6.4

AI-suggested

Red Hat advises all users running RHACS 4.6 versions earlier than 4.6.4 to upgrade to the 4.6.4 patch release, which contains fixes for these security vulnerabilities and other bugs. No additional mitigation steps are specified beyond applying this official patch.

Description

This release of RHACS 4.6.4 includes security and bug fixes. If you are using an earlier version of RHACS 4.6, you are advised to upgrade to this patch release 4.6.4. Bugs fixed: * Fixed an issue where Scanner V4 performed TLS validation even for integrations where TLS validation was disabled. * Fixed an issue that prevented the "Container CPU Limit" field from being added to security policy rules. * Fixed an issue where the Network Policies tab in the network graph detail view would hang in the PatternFly Code editor due to a potential issue with the Monaco-based text editor. Security issues fixed: * CVE-2025-27144: Flaw in Go JOSE versions prior to 4.0.5. * CVE-2025-22868: Flaw in Golang in the token parsing component. * CVE-2025-22869: Flaw in golang.org/x/crypto Secure Shell (SSH) file transfer implementation. For more details about the security issue(s), including the impact, a CVSS score, and other related information, refer to the CVE page(s) listed in the References section.

Impact

The vulnerabilities affect cryptographic and token parsing components within RHACS, potentially impacting the security of token handling and SSH file transfers. The exact impact details and CVSS scores are available on the respective CVE pages but are not included here. The issues are rated as high severity by Red Hat Product Security. No known exploits in the wild have been reported at this time.

Summary

This advisory addresses three security vulnerabilities in RHACS 4.6 prior to 4.6.4: CVE-2025-22868, a flaw in the Golang token parsing component; CVE-2025-22869, a flaw in the golang.org/x/crypto Secure Shell (SSH) file transfer implementation; and CVE-2025-27144, a flaw in Go JOSE versions prior to 4.0.5. These vulnerabilities impact components used by RHACS and have been fixed in the 4.6.4 patch release. The update also resolves additional bugs unrelated to security. The vendor rates the security impact as Important (high severity) and recommends upgrading to RHACS 4.6.4 to address these issues.

CWE-1286Improper Validation of Syntactic Correctness of Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to be well-formed - i.e., to comply with a certain syntax - but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input complies with the syntax.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
NoSQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-770Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #25
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
Requirements
Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
Architecture and Design
Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
Architecture and Design
Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V11.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XML Ping of the Death (opens in a new tab)
Exponential Data Expansion (opens in a new tab)
Serialized Data Parameter Blowup (opens in a new tab)
Serialized Data with Nested Payloads (opens in a new tab)
Oversized Serialized Data Payloads (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 14 Aug 2026, 22:11 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1286, CWE-770

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats